adverse possession claim in Arizona

2019See Lewis, 173 Ariz. at 191 . ¶12 While Hammon and Cox initially entered the property as members of the Trust, the board of trustees allowed Hammon and Cox to continue their possession and use of Lot 10 under the terms of the lease.

2015Pleasant Country, 173 Ariz. at 190 , 840 P.32d at 1055. ¶11 When a question arises as to the relationship created by real estate contracts, no single provision of the contracts is dispositive.

2024We also consider what is required to establish the “open and notorious” element of an adverse possession claim. ¶2 We hold today that Arizona law recognizes a cause of action for boundary by acquiescence, and that the claimant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the elements as set forth in Mealey v. Arndt, 206 Ariz. 218 , 221 ¶ 13 (App. 2003), with the additional element that the actual boundary is uncertain or disputed.

2022Cf. Berryhill v. Moore, 180 Ariz. 77 , 82–83 (App. 1994) (mistake of fact by the claiming party does not defeat an adverse possession claim). ¶15 The Becks also contend that the curbing “does not meet the requirements for creating a boundary line sufficient to establish boundary by acquiescence,” noting the superior court’s finding that it “falls far short of creating a boundary line identified with certainty.” Arizona law only requires that the purported boundary be “definite, visible, and clearly marked.” Mealey, 206 Ariz. at 222, ¶ 15 .

1994Combs v. DuBois, 135 Ariz. 465, 468 , 662 P.2d 140, 143 (App.1982).

1994Combs v. DuBois, 135 Ariz. 465, 468 , 662 P.2d 140, 143 (App.1982).

1992Tenney v. Luplow, 103 Ariz. 363, 367-68 , 442 P.2d 107, 111-12 (1968) (adverse possession may be based on presumption that facts and circumstances indicate claimant repudiates owner’s title); Costello v. Muheim, 9 Ariz. 422, 428 , 84 P. 906, 908 (1906) (to give notice of claim, hostile acts must carry presumption that owner would observe *193 them if he visited property); Rorebeck, 1 Ariz.App. at 5 , 398 P.2d at 682 (to establish adverse possession claimant need only show “that he occupied or used the land as would an ordinary owner of the same type of land taking into account the uses for whi

1992Tenney v. Luplow, 103 Ariz. 363, 367-68 , 442 P.2d 107, 111-12 (1968) (adverse possession may be based on presumption that facts and circumstances indicate claimant repudiates owner’s title); Costello v. Muheim, 9 Ariz. 422, 428 , 84 P. 906, 908 (1906) (to give notice of claim, hostile acts must carry presumption that owner would observe *193 them if he visited property); Rorebeck, 1 Ariz.App. at 5 , 398 P.2d at 682 (to establish adverse possession claimant need only show “that he occupied or used the land as would an ordinary owner of the same type of land taking into account the uses for whi

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

2023See Tena v. Yorgulez, 24 Ariz. App. 311, 314 (1975).

2016Herzog v. Boykin, 148 Ariz. 131, 133-34 (App. 1985). ¶21 A party that succeeds on a contract claim, as McComb did here, can recover fees on interwoven claims.

1992Tenney v. Luplow, 103 Ariz. 363, 367-68 , 442 P.2d 107, 111-12 (1968) (adverse possession may be based on presumption that facts and circumstances indicate claimant repudiates owner’s title); Costello v. Muheim, 9 Ariz. 422, 428 , 84 P. 906, 908 (1906) (to give notice of claim, hostile acts must carry presumption that owner would observe *193 them if he visited property); Rorebeck, 1 Ariz.App. at 5 , 398 P.2d at 682 (to establish adverse possession claimant need only show “that he occupied or used the land as would an ordinary owner of the same type of land taking into account the uses for whi

1992Tenney v. Luplow, 103 Ariz. 363, 367-68 , 442 P.2d 107, 111-12 (1968) (adverse possession may be based on presumption that facts and circumstances indicate claimant repudiates owner’s title); Costello v. Muheim, 9 Ariz. 422, 428 , 84 P. 906, 908 (1906) (to give notice of claim, hostile acts must carry presumption that owner would observe *193 them if he visited property); Rorebeck, 1 Ariz.App. at 5 , 398 P.2d at 682 (to establish adverse possession claimant need only show “that he occupied or used the land as would an ordinary owner of the same type of land taking into account the uses for whi

1992Gospel Echos Chapel, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 19 Ariz.App. 382, 384 , 507 P.2d 994, 996 (1973).

1992Gospel Echos Chapel, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 19 Ariz.App. 382, 384 , 507 P.2d 994, 996 (1973).

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1992Although the Arizona cases which have addressed adverse possession by mistake all involved a claimant who had no right to possess the land, see Higginbotham v. Kuehn, 102 Ariz. 37, 38-39 , 424 P.2d 165, 166-67 (1967) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Gunther & Shirley Co. v. Presbytery, 85 Ariz. 56, 58-59 , 331 P.2d 257, 258-59 (1958) (mistaken possession by tax deed purchaser before right to possess matured); Trevillian v. Rais, 40 Ariz. 42, 45-46 , 9 P.2d 402, 403 (1932) (mistaken possession of adjoining property up to visible boundary line); Ziggy’s Op

1984See Foshee v. Foshee, 278 Ala. 205 , 177 So.2d 99 (1965); Tarver v. Tarver, 258 Ala. 683 , 65 So.2d 148 (1953); Dimmick v. Dimmick, 58 Cal.2d 417 , 374 P.2d 824 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 856 (1962); Redfearn v. Kuhia, 53 Hawaii 378 , 494 P.2d 562 (1972); Quates v. Griffin, 239 So.2d 803 (Miss.1970); Heggen v. Maren-tette, 144 N.W.2d 218 (N.D.1966).

1984See Foshee v. Foshee, 278 Ala. 205 , 177 So.2d 99 (1965); Tarver v. Tarver, 258 Ala. 683 , 65 So.2d 148 (1953); Dimmick v. Dimmick, 58 Cal.2d 417 , 374 P.2d 824 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 856 (1962); Redfearn v. Kuhia, 53 Hawaii 378 , 494 P.2d 562 (1972); Quates v. Griffin, 239 So.2d 803 (Miss.1970); Heggen v. Maren-tette, 144 N.W.2d 218 (N.D.1966).